U.S. investigates doping case vs Chinese swimmers
‘It would not be appropriate for World Aquatics to provide more detail on who is running the American investigation.’
Daily Tribune‘It would not be appropriate for World Aquatics to provide more detail on who is running the American investigation.’
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AFP) — The executive director of World Aquatics (WA) has been summoned to testify in the United States over the controversy surrounding Chinese competitors who failed doping tests, the international swimming body confirmed on Friday.
WA said it wanted to stress that Brent Nowicki “has only been asked to testify as a witness” ahead of potential US action against the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
“World Aquatics can confirm that its executive director, Brent Nowicki, was served with a witness subpoena by the United States government,” WA said in an email to AFP, without saying who had issued the summons.
“It would not be appropriate for World Aquatics to provide more detail on who is running the American investigation,” said the statement.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation responded to an AFP question about its role by saying: “Per our standard practice, the FBI does not confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.”
The case stems from revelations in April that 23 Chinese swimmers failed tests for the heart drug trimetazidine in 2021.
WADA responded to the reports of the latest development in the investigation by saying in a statement it was “disappointed to learn that the US Department of Justice is now investigating the 2021 contamination case of 23 swimmers in China.”
The swimmers were allowed to compete at the Tokyo Olympics, where they won three golds, after WADA accepted the Chinese explanation that the positive results were caused by food contamination at their hotel.
WADA said it “reviewed the Chinese swimmer case file diligently, consulted with scientific and legal experts, and ultimately determined that it was in no position to challenge the contamination scenario, such that an appeal was not warranted.”